There are so many problems here I don't know where to begin. What I was addressing in my last post was the notion that somehow, people should be completely bewildered or uncertain about the meaning of a black man (eg Thomas) making a reference to lynching as a way of invoking a charge of racism. Both you and Lowbacca's insistence on this point seems to be born of some fear of acknowledging race. I don't understand why, but it's patently foolish. We all acknowledge that there are many possible meanings to a given statement. But we also should all concede that not all possible meanings are equally likely. In particular, groups of people have common experiences, and from these common experiences are forged common identity and culture. Within these cultures, certain events and terms acquire unique power as reference points or touchstones. Identifying what those are is a valid method for helping to puzzle through the meaning of someone's statements. You keep begging for "additional information" but ignore basic demographic facts like the identity of speaker, of the addresses, and the context of a nomination hearing for what would prospectively be the only Black justice on the court. This has nothing to do with looking for context clues, and everything to do with his fixed intent on ignoring certain ones.